1

SETTING TARGETS IN STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES

USER GUIDE

This document includes guidance about how to set targets during the Student Learning Objetive (SLO)

process. The pages that follow define terms, delineate different types of targets, and provide insight to

help guide educators’ decision making. It is intended to support teachers, administrators, and district

leaders as they continue to strengthen the SLO process in their varied contexts.

WHAT’S INSIDE

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

A Conceptual Understanding of Target-Setting as Part of the SLO Process ............................................................................ 3

What is a target and why is setting one an essential part of the SLO process? .......................................................................... 3

How do you determine targets that are rigorous yet attainable? ..................................................................................................... 4

What does mastery or proficiency of the relevant course or grade-level standards and curriculum look like? ............ 4

What amount of progress toward mastery or proficiency represents a year’s worth of learning? ..................................... 5

What are the implications if students make a year’s worth of learning? ...................................................................................... 5

The Process of Determining Targets for Student Learning Objectives .......................................................................................... 7

Frequently Asked Questions about Target Setting ................................................................................................................................... 9

How do I know what the standard for proficiency should be for a local assessment? .............................................................. 9

How can there be comparability between local assessments? ........................................................................................................... 9

Why isn’t assigning targets the solution to comparable rigor? ........................................................................................................ 10

How can I tier targets so that they are rigorous but attainable for all students? ..................................................................... 10

Should I express targets in terms of progress or achievement? ....................................................................................................... 13

How can I write targets if I include multiple measures? ..................................................................................................................... 15

Resources to Support the Target Setting Process ................................................................................................................................... 19

2

Standards & Curriculum

Assessment Instruction

INTRODUCTION

As a goal-setting process, SLOs incorporate the core

elements of teaching: they are based on standards &

curriculum, their use and results help inform instruction,

and they are monitored and measured using assessment.

At the intersection of these core elements is strategic data

use and SLOs. Through a variety of assessment

techniques, teachers constantly use qualitative and

quantitative data to monitor student learning and guage

the effectiveness of short and long-term standards-based

instruction. The process of setting goals and monitoring

progress toward those goals is simply part of strong

instructional practice, and participating in goal-setting

processes increases the impact an educator has on student

learning.

In Rhode Island, educators create SLOs based on long-term learning goals for students. When writing an

SLO, teachers ask themselves the following three Essential Questions:

1. What are the most important knowledge/skills I want my students to attain by the end of

the interval of instruction?

2. Where are my students now (at the beginning of instruction) with respect to the objective?

3. Based on what I know about my students, where do I expect them to be by the end of the

interval of instruction and how will they demonstrate their knowledge/skills?

Once educators have answered the first two essential questions by identifying the Priority of Content and

examining baseline data and information they are ready to answer the third essential question and think

about where students should be at the end of the interval of instruction (targets) and how they will

demonstrate their skills/knowledge (evidence sources).

SLOs

3

A B

A CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF TARGET-SETTING

AS PART OF THE SLO PROCESS

WHAT IS A TARGET AND WHY IS SETTING ONE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE SLO PROCESS?

The third essential question prompts educators to articulate the level of content knowledge or skills that

are critical for students to develop while in the educator’s class; this is the target(s). Writing a target

involves defining the level of content knowledge and skills that students will have at the end of the

interval of instruction. A target is not simply a test score. A

target may be expressed as a score on an assessment but that

score must represent a level of performance that reflects students’

performance on critical content knowledge and skills. Only after

you define the knowledge and skills that students will develop

can you find or create the right evidence source to allow students

to demonstrate these knowledge and skills, along with defining cut scores, if necessary.

Furthermore,

There must be a target for each student in the class represented by the SLO;

The target should be measurable; and

The target should be rigorous yet attainable for the interval of instruction; in most cases, the

target should be tiered to reflect students’ differing baselines.

At its most basic, target setting for SLOs occurs when educators describe

where students are, in regards to the prioritized content knowledge or

skills, at the beginning of the interval of instruction (Point A) and then

name a goal for where students will be in regards to that knowledge and

skills at the end of the interval of instruction (Point B).

One Rhode Island school leader described the SLO process and the act of setting targets as follows: “An

SLO is nothing more than a roadmap. We have a destination but there are pits and stops along the way

where you pull over and use the map to reflect and to redirect where necessary so that you can get to that

destination.”

In order to set rigorous but realistic targets, you need at least

a basic idea of where students are starting; that is baseline

data. Tool #2 in the Assessment Toolkit, along with the

accompanying online module, discusses baseline data and

information and how it can help with the target-setting

process. For a link to the resources, please see page 15.

It is important to note that the elements included

(knowledge/skills, baseline data/information, targets and

assessments) in the three essential questions are

It is important to note that

the three elements

included in the three

essential questions are

interconnected.

A target is not simply a

test score.

4

interconnected; targets are connected to student baseline data/information and also to the assessment an

educator is using, all of which is related to the content and skills of the objective statement.

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE TARGETS THAT ARE RIGOROUS YET ATTAINABLE?

While setting targets, educators and evaluators are encouraged to consider what is rigorous yet attainable

for students. But, educators often ask, “How do you determine what is rigorous and attainable?” Setting

targets that are too rigorous so that they are unrealistic hurts students and teachers alike. Conversely,

setting targets that are not adequately rigorous can hurt students by lowering the expectations adults

have for them and decreasing necessary urgency for significant progress. Finding a middle ground by

trying to answer this question directly is rarely fruitful.

Alternatively, educators and evaluators should use the following three questions to guide them as they

write, review, and approve SLO targets for students in the educator’s class or course:

1. What does mastery or proficiency of the relevant course or grade-level standards or

curriculum look like?

2. What amount of progress toward that mastery or proficiency represents a year’s worth of

learning?

3. What are the implications if students make a year’s worth of learning?

Answering the three questions above can be challenging, but it’s a vital task for educators to engage in.

Ultimately, it will help educators and districts as they simultaneously write SLOs, develop their

comprehensive assessment systems, and work toward larger educational goals. As educators answer

these questions they can utilize data from prior SLOs to better evaluate the breadth and depth of content,

rigor of target, and student readiness for the next level of instruction.

For additional guidance on answering the three core questions that educators and evaluators should use to help them write, review, and approve SLO targets, see below:

1. WHAT DOES MASTERY OR PROFICIENCY OF THE RELEVANT COURSE OR GRADE-LEVEL

STANDARDS AND CURRICULUM LOOK LIKE?

Once the content focus of an SLO has been set, the teacher should think about or, if possible, discuss with

colleagues what it would look like for students to demonstrate that learning.

What would students know and be able to do by the end of the interval of instruction?

How can students demonstrate what they know and are able to do?

Does the evidence source selected for the SLO allow for them to demonstrate that knowledge and

understanding? If so, the next step is to determine the level of performance on that assessment that would

indicate basic proficiency by asking, “At what point would the teacher feel adequately confident that the

student has progressed or learned enough to be positioned for success in the next course or grade level?”

5

2. WHAT AMOUNT OF PROGRESS TOWARD MASTERY OR PROFICIENCY REPRESENTS A

YEAR’S WORTH OF LEARNING?

A rough metric that can be helpful for teachers to keep in mind when setting preliminary targets is the

“year’s worth of learning.” Courses and curricula are aligned to standards that represent what is

expected to be learned over the period of instruction. Teachers should first look to their standards and

curriculum to determine the skills and content knowledge students should have by the end of the interval

of instruction.

While the default target for any SLO should reflect mastery

of the relevant course or grade-level standards, the reality is

that not all students begin with the same level of

preparedness. Educators need to determine what a year’s

worth of learning would look like for students who enter

significantly below or significantly above grade-level

expectations and targets may be tiered to reflect

differentiated expectations for learning. In all cases,

educators should use their standards as a guide for

understanding what students should be mastering year to

year.

3. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS IF STUDENTS MAKE A YEAR’S WORTH OF LEARNING?

If educators set targets that reflect a year’s worth of learning, as defined above, they should consider what the

implications would be if students met those targets. Ultimately, if educators cannot say that targets support

students in being prepared for the next level of instruction, narrowing or closing achievement gaps, or

deepening their skills and content knowledge to a new and advanced level, then they are not rigorous

enough.

For simplicity the following guidance is framed for educators whose interval of instruction is a full school

year. However the guidance is equally applicable to educators who teach for an interval of instruction

less than a year. Educators and evaluators should consider the following while reflecting on their targets for

students:

For students meeting grade-level expectations, will they make enough progress so that they are

ready for the next level of instruction (e.g., the next course or grade level)? Students who enter a

course with the necessary prerequisite knowledge or skills should be expected to master the relevant

course or grade-level standards. If they do not, they will fall behind grade-level expectations and an

achievement gap will have been created.

For those students coming in behind grade-level expectations, does this amount of progress help

each student narrow or close, maintain, or widen an achievement gap? While students in lower tiers

may have a lower absolute target, reaching it may require them to make more progress than students with

higher targets, resulting in a closing or narrowing of the achievement gap(s). At some point, these students

While the default target for any

SLO should reflect mastery of the

relevant course or grade-level

standards, the reality is that not

all students begin with the same

level of preparedness.

6

who begin the course behind will need to make more than

“a year’s worth of learning” otherwise they will never

catch up. Targets can be tiered, but they should not calcify

achievement gaps. The need for fairness and appropriateness

should be balanced by the need to challenge lower-achieving

students and intensify their services and interventions to

catch up to their peers. Obviously, this is a challenge that cannot be addressed solely by an individual teacher

setting a target on an SLO. The school and district must identify resources needed to help students who have

fallen behind catch up and close the achievement gap.

For students who are coming in ahead of grade-level expectations, does this amount of progress

ensure that each student deepens their skills and content knowledge and continues to be

challenged to a new and advanced level? Students who enter the course with prerequisite knowledge

or skills that exceed what is expected or required should deepen their learning or advance to the next set

of grade-level skills. If students do not make this amount of progress then they have lost their advanced

development.

Targets for students who are English Language Learners or for those who have a disability require

additional consideration. In some cases, evidence may need to be differentiated for English Language

Learners to account for how they currently demonstrate content skills and knowledge. All teachers

should ensure their content targets for English Language Learners are informed by students’ language

comprehension and communication skills. Educators of students with IEPs should collaborate with other

teachers and staff members to review present levels of academic and functional performance and

historical data to set appropriate targets that narrow and ultimately close achievement gaps.

Since targets can be tiered,

they should not calcify

achievement gaps.

7

THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING TARGETS FOR

STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES

There are seven steps for writing an SLO (below) and they are explained in greater detail in The Process for

Writing a Student Learning Objective: A Guide for Educators in Rhode Island.

STEPS FOR WRITING A STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE:

1. Write the Logistical Information

2. Identify What’s Most Important: Priority of Content

3. Gather and Analyze Baseline Data and Information

4. Determine Target(s) for Students

a. Choose the most appropriate type of target to utilize

The appropriateness of the type is very much dependent on the content

addressed by the SLO and, in some cases, the instrument available to measure

that learning. In addition, a single SLO might employ different types of targets

for different groups of students. For more information on types of targets, see

page 13.

b. Tier target(s) based on student starting points and supports

Look at baseline data and information and consider what a year’s worth of

learning would look like for different students based on their starting points.

Consider the variety and level of supports students will receive throughout the year.

For more information on tiering targets, see page 10.

c. Ask the reflection questions

For students entering on grade level, will they make enough progress so that

they are ready for the next level of instruction (e.g., the next course or grade

level)?

For those students coming in behind grade-level expectations, does this amount

of progress help each student narrow or close, maintain, or widen an

achievement gap?

For students who are coming in ahead of grade-level expectations, does this

amount of progress ensure that each student deepens their skills and content

knowledge and continues to be challenged to a new and advanced level?

d. Write a rationale for the target(s)

The rationale does not need to be overly detailed or complex but should give

context to the targets.

5. Describe your Evidence Source(s)

a. Does your evidence source(s) allow students to demonstrate what they know

and are able to do in relation to the content addressed by the SLO and your

targets?

If multiple evidence sources are used, what is the relationship between them? For

more information on using multiple measures, see page 15.

6. Review the SLO

7. Use the SLO to Inform Teaching and Learning Throughout the Year

8

This document focuses on Steps 4 and 5, though all the steps are interconnected and cannot be divorced

from one another. While the factors described in steps 4 and 5 represent a logical process, one does not

have to follow it in its exact order. That being said, all of them are important for educators and their

evaluators to consider and set thoughtful targets. Short case studies that illustrate the different ways

educators can set targets can be found on pages 13-14.

If educators are at Step 4 in the SLO writing process and are ready to determine targets for student

learning, then they should have already considered factors that may impact targets like the following:

Grade level or course standards and curriculum Baseline data and information, including historical data on the growth and mastery of past

students, as well as national norms (if applicable) The interval of instruction

When writing or reviewing targets in an SLO, educators should consider three criteria to determine their

quality, including:

1. Are all students included in the SLO addressed by the tiers? Every student in the class needs a

target. If tiers are being utilized then every student in a specific tier has the same target, whether

it defines the amount of progress or level of mastery students will achieve.

2. Is the target(s) measurable? Could you track the progress of the students (e.g. X# move from

level A to level B) given how the targets are defined? If not, it’s not measurable.

3. Based on the baseline data/information or assumptions about student mastery levels, does the

target(s) reflect a learning goal that is rigorous yet attainable for all students by the end of

the interval of instruction? In other words, are you able to answer positively to all three reflection

questions?

These three criteria are included on the SLO Self-Audit for LEAs and Schools and are referenced in the

SLO Quality Review Tool. Links to these resources are located on page 18.

9

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT TARGET SETTING

Many teachers in Rhode Island have been setting goals for students for a long time, so the process of

selecting an instructional focus and articulating the objective of an SLO can feel familiar. Additionally, all

teachers assess students and many have been deepening their assessment literacy in recent years through

coursework, Professional Growth Goals, and district professional development initiatives. On the other

hand, setting specific targets that capture students’ progress throughout an extended instructional time is

less familiar for most. Through state-wide surveys, trainings, workgroups, and conversations educators

have reported that setting targets continues to be a challenging aspect of the SLO process for teachers and

administrators in Rhode Island; this is understandable and has resulted in educators raising many

important questions that get to the heart of teaching and learning.

Below are five questions that educators across the state have been asking as they write SLOs and set

targets for student learning:

HOW DO I KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD FOR PROFICIENCY SHOULD BE FOR A LOCAL

ASSESSMENT?

Standard setting is the process of selecting cut scores on an assessment that reflect the target knowledge

and skills. A cut score is the score that defines the minimum performance required for a particular level

of achievement on an assessment. In the most basic version, a single cut score might define the level of

achievement or proficiency necessary to “pass” an assessment. The actual score can take many forms—a

“3” on a 4-point rubric, a C on an essay exam, or a 70% on a 100-point test.

Whatever the form, the basic cut score should indicate the same thing: this student has demonstrated

minimal proficiency needed to meet the expected performance. The number or letter itself is arbitrary

without a strong link to the insight it provides about student learning. How high the standard should be

set depends on the difficulty of both the construct (the material being measured) and the assessment’s

design. For instance, a health teacher might set a cut score of 90 on a multiple-choice quiz that assesses

basic but critical knowledge. For that assessment, earning a score of 90 demonstrates minimal

proficiency. In other cases, like an AP exam, minimal proficiency is set at 3 (on a 5 point scale). RIDE has

developed A Process for Local Standard Setting that groups of educators can use to determine an

appropriate cut score on teacher-created assessments. A link to this document can be found on page 18.

HOW CAN THERE BE COMPARABILITY BETWEEN LOCAL ASSESSMENTS?

Implementing educator evaluation in ways that are consistent and fair is important. Many evaluators

want to ensure there is comparability across SLOs in terms of their breadth and depth, and the rigor of

the assessments and targets. However, scores on different assessments represent very different amounts

and types of learning. If one classroom’s students all earn an 80 on one literacy assessment it isn’t

necessarily comparable to an 80 on a different math assessment. So, even if everyone in the state had the

same cut score, it would not mean that the targets are comparable. Rather, comparability can be achieved

when groups of educators work together to examine assessments to ensure they are of high quality and

provide evidence of the desired target. Groups of educators participating in standard-setting processes

and aligning targets vertically across grades and horizontally across classrooms within grades can also

10

enhance comparability between schools within, and ultimately among, districts. Most important to

remember is that a target is not a score on an assessment; a target names the level of knowledge or skills

students will attain, and a score on an assessment indicates whether students have demonstrated the

extent of knowledge and skills you identified as the target.

WHY ISN’T ASSIGNING TARGETS THE SOLUTION TO COMPARABLE RIGOR?

Although setting targets is a challenge, it is also the case that assigning targets to teachers is not the

solution. Most importantly, when districts, departments, or administrators assign targets educators lose

the opportunity to engage, reflect, and learn from the work embedded in the SLO process. The questions

and conversations that must be had as part of writing SLOs are meaty and important; in many ways they

cut to the heart of teaching and learning. These conversations and the challenges they can unearth are

not only worthy, but crucial, for educators, schools, and districts to grapple with.

Additionally, assigned targets often feel arbitrary and/or ill fitting for teachers, who may not have a clear

understanding of why a particular target has been chosen by the district, their administrator, or even a

group of their colleagues. It can feel more like something that was plucked from thin air than a

meaningful guidepost for student learning (e.g., 80% of students will reach X and 20% of students will

reach Y). When this occurs, the target feels disconnected from their work and, as a result, the SLO process

ceases to be productive and informative.

This is why a key feature of Rhode Island’s SLO model is that it encourages teachers, ideally in

collaboration with their colleagues, to be actively involved in setting targets for their own students. The

teachers’ participation is critical to the target being both meaningful and appropriate.

HOW CAN I TIER TARGETS SO THAT THEY ARE RIGOROUS BUT ATTAINABLE FOR ALL

STUDENTS?

As educators, we know that our students enter our classrooms with a range of knowledge and skills. In

some courses, most students enter with very little background knowledge about the subject area, as in an

introductory course to a world language, for example. In this case, the teacher would likely have similar

expectations for what students will know and be able to do upon completion of the course. In other cases,

particularly in courses that focus on more linear content that spans many grade levels, such as reading

comprehension, students’ background knowledge and skills will have significant bearing on their

expected performance by the end of the course. When a group of students enters a course with great

differences in how prepared they are to access the content, the teacher will likely want to set tiered

targets. This means that different students or, more

commonly, different groups of students, are expected to

make different amounts of progress or reach different

levels of proficiency by the end of the interval of

instruction. All students in a course (including multiple

sections, if applicable) should be included in an educator’s

SLO and all students are expected to meet their targets, but

those targets should be tiered to be appropriate for each

student.

All students are expected to

meet their targets, but those

targets should be tiered to be

appropriate for each student.

11

Setting tiered targets based on students’ prerequisite knowledge and skills helps to ensure that the targets

are rigorous and attainable for all students. Students entering a course with high proficiency or robust

prerequisite skills will need to be challenged by a higher target. For students entering a course with lower

proficiency or lacking prerequisite skills, a more modest target may be appropriate in order to ensure that

it is reasonably attainable within the interval of instruction. That said, the intent of tiered targets is not to

solidify achievement gaps but to support their narrowing. The need for fairness and appropriateness

should be balanced by the need to challenge lower-achieving students to catch up to their peers.

Additionally, while students in lower tiers may have a lower absolute target, reaching it may require

them to make more progress than students with higher targets.

Teachers can set as many tiers as is appropriate to help ensure that each student is appropriately

challenged. While they have the option to set a different target for each student, in most cases that is not

necessary because students can be grouped into tiers with peers who have similar prerequisite skills or

preparedness. In some classes, there may be two distinct groups; in others, there may be four. However, a

fairly simple approach that can be used to begin is to group students into one of three categories: those

who are entering the course with the expected level of preparedness, those who are entering the course

with a lower-than-expected level of preparedness, and those who are entering the course with a higher-

than-expected level of preparedness. Of course, in order to do this, the teacher must have a sense of

students’ incoming knowledge and skills, which underscores the need for sound baseline data and

information.

Figure 1 below illustrates this concept with a 6th grade math class which includes twenty-four students

with three different starting places and targets.

In the figure above, the group of students in blue began the year with the prerequisite skills and

knowledge for 6th grade. Their targets would get them to a place where they could demonstrate

preparedness for 7th grade skills and content knowledge. The students in red who arrived a year behind

their on-level peers had targets that would narrow their learning gap. In this case it might have been

unattainable to expect students to completely close the gap, but if they reach their targets and make a

similar amount of growth the following year they will be able to eliminate the achievement gap and reach

proficiency. The four students in purple who started the year with more advanced skills and content

knowledge had targets that were comparable in growth to the blue students, setting the expectation that

they will improve by a year’s worth of learning. If the purple group met their target they would maintain

their above grade level status.

Figure 1

5th grade

skills/content

knowledge

6th grade

skills/content

knowledge

7th grade

skills/content

knowledge

12

As shown in Figure 1, it is unlikely that there will be an equal distribution of students across all three

categories. There may not be any students who fall into one of these categories. Or, the teacher may

decide that there are important differences among the students in one of the groups and it needs to be

disaggregated into a fourth tier. The point of this exercise is not to permanently label students or create

tidy groupings. Rather, the point is to give teachers a way to meaningfully differentiate targets so that

they are adequately rigorous and reasonably attainable for all students.

Figure 2 below shows what can happen when one mastery target is set for all students. In this example,

the target appears to be rigorous and attainable for the blue group, but it does not seem feasible that the

red group would completely close their learning gap in a single year. Additionally, if these targets were

met, the purple group would make little progress and lose the advanced status they started with.

Figure 3 illustrates an example of an SLO with a common goal that all students make about a year’s

worth of learning. While this might be rigorous and attainable for some students, it sets the expectation

that the red group, which is currently behind grade level, will not make any progress toward narrowing

the achievement gap. In fact, in the example below the achievement gap will have widened for the red

group. It is also important to consider what additional supports the group may receive or be eligible for.

In other words, if it is important for the red group to make more than a year’s worth of learning and they

are receiving additional support, then it makes sense for them to have a more rigorous target.

Figure 2

Figure 3

5th grade

skills/content

knowledge

6th grade

skills/content

knowledge

7th grade

skills/content

knowledge

5th grade

skills/content

knowledge

7th grade

skills/content

knowledge

6th grade

skills/content

knowledge

13

SHOULD I EXPRESS TARGETS IN TERMS OF PROGRESS OR ACHIEVEMENT?

There are two ways of expressing targets and neither is

better than the other. Rather, it is essential that the type

of target chosen fits the content and assessment being

used. Each way of expressing targets shows students’

progress toward the mastery of essential skills and

knowledge. Below are descriptions for how targets can

be articulated.

Progress or the amount of improvement: A target can be expressed in terms of the progress or the

amount of improvement the teacher expects the students to make from the beginning to end of a given

interval of instruction. Given that they are based largely on students’ starting points, describing a target

this way is most appropriate for constructs (the content being measured) that are linear in nature or that

clearly build upon pre-requisite knowledge and skills. Reading levels are a good example of this type of

construct because there are many well-established scales that describe sequential levels of attainment.

Progress targets can be individual or tiered but the critical piece is that the amount of progress should be

based on asking the Core Questions and by following the steps outlined earlier on pages 7 and 8. Lastly,

if expressing targets in terms of progress it is important to note that a true pre-test/post-test approach

does not have to be utilized. For more guidance on when a pre-test/post-test approach would be

appropriate, please see the Using Baseline Data to Set SLO Targets guidance document and online

module, which are linked on page 18.

Achievement expectations: Targets can also be expressed in a way that describes achievement

expectations students must meet by the end of the interval of instruction in order to be considered

proficient or ready to advance to the next course or grade. Expressing targets in this manner by defining

mastery of content knowledge or skills may be more appropriate for some content areas without well-

established levels or scales (e.g., Chemistry, U.S. History, or Health). It should be noted, however, that the

same level of mastery needn’t be set for all students, just as the same amount of progress needn’t be

identical for all students. It may be appropriate, given students’ differing levels of background

knowledge or preparedness for the course, to expect different groups of students to meet different levels

of mastery (e.g., Minimally Proficient, Proficient, Proficient with Distinction) or different levels of

progress.

However a target is expressed there are a few key

points that are necessary to highlight. First, no single

way of phrasing a target (whether in terms of student

progress or achievement) is better or more rigorous

than the other. Oftentimes targets can simply be

rephrased from one form into another. For instance, an

elementary teacher with an SLO focused on literacy

development could have targets aimed at increasing

student reading levels. The following table illustrates

that while the targets can be described in either of two

ways, the targets remain the same.

Each way of expressing targets

shows students’ progress

toward proficiency on essential

skills and knowledge.

No single way of phrasing a target

(whether in terms of student progress

or achievement) is better or more

rigorous than the other. Oftentimes

targets can simply be rephrased from

one form into another.

14

Student (or Tier of Students)

Baseline Data / Information

Target

1 Reading Level P Reading Level S

2 Reading Level R Reading Level U

3 Reading Level T Reading Level W

Target(s) expressed in terms of progress: All students will make 3 levels worth of progress by the end of the year.

Target(s) expressed in terms of achievement: Students in Tier 1 will read at level S by the end of the year. Students in Tier 2 will read at level U by the end of the year. Students in Tier 3 will read at level W by the end of the year.

The targets above are expressed in terms of a test score, but what they indicate about student learning is

the key. While these targets may represent a “year’s worth of learning” the implications are that, if

Student 1 is behind grade-level then the achievement gap will have persisted into the following school

year. Note that in the example above all students made the same amount of progress (three levels)

however, it may be appropriate for some students (like those in Tier 1) to show more progress than their

peers, as discussed on pages 11 and 12.

The way you choose to express the target for an SLO

should not be arbitrarily chosen, nor should it be selected

wholesale for use across a district or school. The

appropriateness of the type of target is very much

dependent on the content addressed by the SLO. For

example, content areas that focus more on the acquisition

of a body of knowledge, such as Biology or U.S. History, may be less appropriate to express targets in

terms of progress and more appropriately suited to express them in terms of student achievement. In fact,

some teachers might have one SLO that is described through progress (e.g., improved reading levels) and

another defined through mastery (e.g., mastery of ELA content such as literacy devices, narrative

structure, character archetypes, etc.). In addition, a single SLO might employ differently worded targets

for different groups of students. For example, a teacher might set a mastery target for the majority of the

class and a progress target for a smaller group who are unlikely to meet proficiency within the interval of

instruction due to a lack of prerequisite skills.

Whether expressing targets in terms of progress or

mastery, all students must have targets that challenge them

appropriately, whether they begin the course at, below, or

above grade-level expectations. It is not appropriate to

state that a percentage of students will meet a target and

another percentage will simply “show growth” without

having clear, measurable targets that are appropriately

rigorous. If above grade-level students are expected to

maintain a certain (usually high) level of proficiency across

an interval of instruction, then their target should represent

student learning across that interval; it should not be the expectation that students will simply not lose

It is not appropriate to state that a

percentage of students will meet a

target and another percentage will

simply “show growth” without

having clear, measurable targets

that are appropriately rigorous.

The appropriateness of the type of

target is very much dependent on

the content addressed by the SLO.

15

the knowledge or skills with which they entered the course. The expectation should be that students

arriving above grade-level expectations maintain their high level of proficiency or performance on a new

set of standards, on increasingly rigorous texts/content, or according to a more rigorous rubric or

assessment.

HOW CAN I WRITE TARGETS IF I INCLUDE MULTIPLE MEASURES?

In some cases, a single assessment cannot measure the full

breadth of an SLO and some educators may worry about

putting so much stock in a single assessment. Rhode Island

educators are encouraged to use multiple measures in their

teaching and in their SLOs in order to gain a more complete

picture of student learning. Targets with multiple

measures can be interpreted in different ways and the

following section attempts to differentiate and discuss the

elements of each. Whenever any assessment is used as an

evidence source for an SLO, whether it is a single

assessment or a variety of assessments, the goal is always to

offer students opportunity to demonstrate their skills and

content knowledge and for educators to determine if

students can perform at the desired level.

Multiple assessments that measure different constructs: The most common way multiple measures are

used in SLOs is when an educator has multiple assessments that measure different constructs (the content

being measured). For example, an ELA teacher might have an SLO that focuses on student progress in

narrative, argument, and expository writing. The SLO might be measured by three summative writing

pieces, spanning these three types of writing. A World Language final exam might be made up of a

written portion and an oral portion. Or, an art or science portfolio assessment might include many pieces

of student work, representing a range of skills addressed by the SLO or indicating that students can

consistently demonstrate a certain level of proficiency. In these examples, it is recommended that the

multiple measures be conjunctive, rather than compensatory. Conjunctive measures are used in tandem,

because they measure different content or skills that are both addressed by an SLO. Typically, the

expectation is that the student will meet the target on each source of evidence.

Multiple assessments that measure the same constructs: A second way of having multiple measures is

by using multiple assessments that measure the same constructs like if an elementary teacher assessing

students’ literacy skills used AIMSweb, DRA2, and STAR. While these three assessments are not

identical, the skills they measure have great overlap. One important caution in this approach is checking

to ensure students are not being over-assessed through redundant testing. If the assessments truly

measure the same construct and new insight into student learning is not provided through additional

assessments, then the higher-quality or better-aligned evidence source should be used.

If these assessments are used conjunctively as described above, then students are expected to reach

targets on each independent measure. Educators should consider why it would be appropriate to require

students to demonstrate the same knowledge and skills on multiple assessments. If used in a

compensatory manner, then the assessments compensate for each other and high performance on one

Whenever any assessment is used

in SLOs, whether it is a single

assessment or a variety of

assessments, the goal is always to

offer students opportunity to

demonstrate their skills and

content knowledge and for

educators to determine if students

can perform at the desired level.

16

measure offsets a low performance on another. If using multiple assessments that measure the same

construct, educators should look across assessments to see what students typical level of skills are or to

see students’ typical behavior at the target level. In some cases educators might take an average score (a

compensatory approach). However, while it might be possible to combine or average scores, taking this

approach requires considerable thought and in many cases might be inappropriate.

In contrast, RIDE encourages educators to utilize multiple assessments that measure connected constructs

within a larger content focus. For instance, if an elementary teacher is assessing the literacy development

of students he or she might utilize Dibbels (decoding), DRA2 (fluency and basic comprehension), and

writing samples in response to reading authentic text (deeper comprehension and writing in response to

text). Together they provide a more complete picture of the range of skills and knowledge students have

in reading.

Using multiple measures that allow the targets to be met on one “and/or” the other: Using multiple

measures that allow the targets to be met on one “and/or” the other is strongly discouraged. If the two

measures assess different constructs, meeting the target for one but not the other would indicate that the

student has not learned all of the content or skills addressed by the SLO. Giving two or more assessments

of the same construct but only using the results of one will not increase the reliability of the results and

might contribute to over-testing.

Offering students multiple opportunities to demonstrate knowledge or skills: Sometimes a teacher

may want students to have multiple opportunities to show what they know and can do across the

interval of instruction. For example, when a curriculum is divided into units of study and each unit has a

separate assessment, the SLO could be aligned to students’ performance across unit assessments. In that

example, the multiple opportunities may be most like the case of multiple assessments that measure

different constructs described above. However, for courses in which there is a clear progression of

knowledge and skills across units of study, successful student performance on later units might

compensate for weaker performance on assessments of early units. The decision on how to combine

results from assessments administered at different times throughout the year has to be aligned with the

goal of the SLO; that is, what students are expected to know and be able to do.

Reassessing students on the same measure: There may be cases when a teacher wants to reassess a

student using the same measure. While retesting may be permitted, this should be handled the same way

as for any other local assessments. If the teacher has a compelling reason to believe that a particular

student’s results do not accurately reflect his/her learning—because of an illness or emotional distress the

day of testing, for example—the teacher may offer the student the opportunity to retest. In general,

reassessing a student using the same measure is not appropriate simply because the student scored just

below the cut score needed to meet the target. That practice results in artificially inflating the number of

students who have met their target by selecting only the most beneficial data (for SLO results). In this

light, an educator should have just as much reason to retest students who scored just over a cut score as

they would to retest students who scored just under the cut score. Retesting students should be fueled by

a desire to support students in increasing their skills, so districts and schools should consider when

retesting on the same assessment makes sense and when it does not.

Using evidence from progress monitoring tools: Effective educators consistently monitor students’

progress throughout instruction. Some have articulated a target and an evidence source but have

17

included progress monitoring measures as additional sources of evidence in their SLO. While monitoring

progress is best practice, educators should be cautious if students are showing very different skills and

content knowledge on progress monitoring measures as compared to other summative measures.

Educators should examine both assessments and ask a variety of questions like if the conditions were the

same or if the rigor was comparable. Again, educators should use evidence to determine if students can

consistently perform at the level identified for them so that they can be sure students will be successful

moving forward.

18

RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE TARGET SETTING PROCESS

Many resources were referenced throughout this document that can support educators

and evaluators with target setting. Please note that there are many more resources

available on the RIDE website for the larger SLO process and all can be accessed at

www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval.

WRITING SLOs

The Process for Writing a Student Learning Objective: A Guide for Educators in Rhode Island can be used by

teachers to facilitate writing SLOs. It is recommended that groups of content or grade-level teachers

come together to collaborate throughout the process, alongside administrators. Educators can also meet

across grade-levels to vertically align expectations of student learning. While meeting, educators can use

the guide as they discuss the student learning that takes place in their classrooms and subsequently draft,

revise, and submit SLOs. This document can be accessed at www.ride.ri.gov/SLOs.

DATA ANALYLSIS

After baseline data has been collected and summative evidence sources have been selected, educators

must use best practices of data analysis to determine the most appropriate targets. The Using Baseline

Data and Information to Set SLO Targets Guidance Document, Worksheet, and Online Module are resources

intended to help teachers and administrators as they analyze student data to directly inform the SLO

process, particularly with setting targets. These can be accessed at www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval-

OnlineModules. There is far too much research and too many quality resources on the general topic of

analyzing data to summarize here. However, the Data Use Professional Development resources and training

materials are a valuable starting place for deepening and refining teachers’ data analysis skills. These can

be accessed at www.ride.ri.gov/Data-Use-PD.

STANDARD SETTING FOR LOCAL ASSESSMENTS

The Standard Setting for Local Assessments document is intended for teachers to use as a tool for reflecting

on, and engaging in standard setting for the local assessments they use with students. The guidance and

protocol can be used in conjunction with the Assessment Toolkit resources, which address high-quality

assessment guidance, using baseline data and information from assessments, reviewing assessments, and

protocols for analyzing and scoring student work. These tools can be used by educators as they select

and develop local assessments for any use in their classrooms, and can be helpful as they write SLOs.

The Assessment Toolkit and Standard Setting for Local Assessments can be accessed at

www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval-OnlineModules.

TARGET SETTING

An online module titled Setting Targets for Student Learning to communicate the messages in this

document has been created and can be used for individual or groups of educators to better understand

the target-setting process. This online module and many others can be accessed at

www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval-OnlineModules.